- (1.) PARITOSH K. Mukherjee, J. Sri Pati Raj, the petitioner, has challenged the order of termination, dated June 15, 1992 con tained in Annexure 4 to the writ petition.
(2.) THE impugned order, dated June 15, 1991 has been passed under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1975' ). THE impugned order is in Hindi, and translated into English, it runs as follows:- "in continuation of letter No. Bhu. Sankhya 1392-A/6-A-43 dated (sic) 18,1992 of Additional Director of Agriculture (Administration), the ser vices of Sri Pati Raj, son of Sri Laxman Kamdar, Krishi Beej Bhandar, Basupur Vikas Khand, Jaisinghpur are hereby terminated with immedi ate effect since the Department is now not re quired the services of Sri Pati Raj. " Sri M. A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was appointed against a vacant post, as is clear from the letter of appoint ment dated 18. 1. 91, contained in Annexure 1 to the Writ petition, he cannot be treated to be a temporary servant within the mean ing of Rule 2 of the Rules of 1975. Rule 2 provides that temporary service means of ficiating, or, substantive service, on a tem porary post or officiating post on a per manent post, under the U. P. Government. He next contended that the order of termination has not been passed strictly in consonance with the provisions contained in Rule 3 of the Rules of 1975, which lays down that services of the Government ser vant are liable to be terminated at any time by notice in writing, either by Government servant to the appointing authority or vice versa. The period of such notice is one month. Since, in the instant case, no notice was given to the petitioner, nor payment of salary in lieu thereof was made, the im pugned order of termination is bad in law.
(3.) IT has been lastly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order of termination has not been passed by application of mind by the appointing authority but the same has been passed on the dictate of higher authority, namely, the Additional Director of Agricul ture (Administration), and, therefore, it cannot be sustained in law. On the other hand, Sri D. K. Shukla, learned standing counsel defended the im pugned order of termination on the ground that the petitioner being a temporary employee, his services were liable to be ter minated at any time. He also urged that the petitioner has worked for only 15 months from January 1991 to middle of June 1992. Thus there was no infirmity in the order of termination, and this court, exercising juris diction under Article 226 of the Constitu tion, would not like to interfere with such valid and legal order of termination of ser vices of the petitioner.;